🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6upgm4$9oo$1@client3.news.psi.net>, Abigail wrote:
> Dave Blake (dblake@dylan.ucsf.edu) wrote on MDCCCLIV September MCMXCIII
> in <URL:news:slrn7106b5.dud.dblake@dylan.ucsf.edu>:
> ++ O'Reilly makes a ton of cash from free software as well.
> 
> But if you're following RMS, you have to be against that as well.
> RMS says that manuals have to be free as well.
> 
> I kind of agree with him. Good documentation should come with a program.
> But that, in my opinion, doesn't mean that ORA hurts the cause of free
> software by selling books.

I beleive RMS meant only the actual technical documentation which is
required for programming.  What RMS would like is for every programmer to be
able to modify the *technical* content of the manual; other types of
contents could have a more restrictive license.

But I do agree with that position, more so than the position "All manuals
should be free"; that's not all that useful.  What's useful is to allow the
developers to update the internal documentation as the product evolve.

On the other hand, that's what comments are supposed to be for.  Maybe I
don't quite get it.

-- 
Benoit Goudreault-Emond
CoFounder, KMS Group ; Student, B. Comp. Eng, Concordia University
``Being too close to a fireball can worry a man --- to death.''
        -- Zeb Carter in "The Number of the Beast" by Robert A. Heinlein

Note:   the "From:" address is not correct to protect myself against spam.
        My actual e-mail address is: ``bgoudem AT axess DOT com''